Court Case Brief

In: Business and Management

Submitted By racho
Words 1055
Pages 5
COURT CASE BRIEF
Donald R. Schroerlucke, And Joyce D. Schroerlucke V United States 2011WL 4440599 (Fed.Cl) No. 09-772T
FACTS
Plaintiff Donald Schroerlucke is a former employee of WorldCom, Inc. His wife is Joyce D. Schroerlucke. In 1989, Mr. Schroerlucke was employed as Vice President of Operations at Long Distance Discount Services, Inc., the predecessor corporation to WorldCom. Pursuant to stock option agreements with Long Distance Discount Services, Inc., and then with WorldCom, Mr. Schroerlucke accumulated employee stock option grants between July 1991 and January 1998. His employment with WorldCom ended on January 4, 1999.
According to the terms of the stock option agreements and an April 7, 1998 memorandum titled, “WorldCom Employee Stock Option Program,” Mr. Schroerlucke was required to immediately exercise all of his employee stock options at the end of his employment. On January 2, 1998, Mr. Schroerlucke had accumulated 172,492 WorldCom stock options. Mr. Schroerlucke exercised all of his existing stock options on February 12, 1999, at which time the market value of his 172,492 WorldCom shares was $13,702,333.25, based on the $79.4375 per share, February 12, 1999, closing price of WorldCom stock.1.
According to the criminal Mr. Ebbers (CEO) and Mr. Sullivan (CFO Scott Sullivan) presented a “materially false and misleading picture of WorldCom’s operating performance and financial results” as part of a “scheme to deceive” and “inflate and maintain artificially the price of WorldCom common stock.” Mr. Schroerlucke was not eligible to participate in the securities fraud class action lawsuit which was brought against WorldCom on April 30, 2002. Only those who had purchased WorldCom stock between April 29, 1999 and June 25, 2002 were eligible. See In re WorldCom, Inc., Sec. Litig., 294 F. Supp. 2d 392, 397 (S.D.N.Y.), motion to certify appeal…...

Similar Documents

Case Brief

...Case Brief GM520, Legal, Political, and Ethical Dimensions of Business Style of Case and Citations Kelo v. City of New London 545 U.S. 469 (2005) Court Rendering Final Decision U.S. Supreme Court Identification of Parties and Procedural Details Susette Kelo and the other affected property owners (Plaintiff) filled a suit challenging New London's legal authority to take their homes in order to make room for Pfizer and the economic development plan. Discussion of the Facts The City of New London came up with a plan to redevelop an area in which they would develop a state park and other architecturally eclectic homes. Part of the deal included Pfizer corporation who would also put a research facility in the area. The development would match what Pfizer corporation was planning and would also increase revenue, create jobs, and promote the waterfront area. This would then be the start of a much needed revitalization of the rest of the city. The New London Development Corporation and other nonprofit corporations planned to bring in Pfizer with hopes of an economic boost. Statement and Discussion of the Legal Issues in Dispute Kelo and other residents are challenging the New London's legal authority in taking their homes. They are questioning if the property meets the requirements as public use within the means of the Taking Clause and the Fifth Amendment. New London's plan is to develop a 90-acre area on the waterfront near the Fort...

Words: 402 - Pages: 2

Case Brief

...Case Brief #1 Name: Thompson v. Clear Springs Foods, Inc., 148 Idaho 697; 228 P.3d 378; 2010 Ida. LEXIS 40 (2010) Facts: Judy Thompson, the claimant, has been an employee for the past 12 years at Clear Spring Food Inc. The company’s regulations state that during her two 15-minute breaks and 30-minute lunch break she must use a time punch card and notify her supervisor if she leaves the facility. During one of her 15-minute breaks Judy decided to go out and move her car “to avoid the risk of not being able to drive up the hill on the country road due to snow.” In the past she had bad experiences with not being able to drive back home after it snowed. However, she didn’t notify her supervisor and failed to punch her time card, despite her good reasoning for moving her car. On her way back to the facility, she slipped and acquired an injury due to hazardous street conditions. According to the supervisor the roads had already been scraped, sanded and clear of snow. Since she didn’t follow company regulations her boss gave her a reprimand that was signed by the manager and Claimant. The claimant still decided to file for compensation claim in order to receive benefits for her injury, but failed due to lack of evidence supporting her claim that her injury was caused by the irresponsibility of the company for having hazardous roads. Issue: The issue to be decided is whether or not the claimant’s injuries are caused by work related problems and if her actions fell......

Words: 443 - Pages: 2

Court Case

...Amy Nguyen June 10, 2012 Court Case Brief Donald R and Joyce D. Schroerlucke, v. United States, 2011 WL 4440599 (Fed.Cl.), cert. Granted, No. 09-772T (9/21/2011) Facts Plaintiffs, Donald and Joyce Schroerlucke, filed a complaint in the United States Court of Federal Claims alleging they were due a tax refund for unreimbursed losses for the 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2002 tax years. Plaintiffs are husband and wife who filed joint federal income tax returns during all years relevant to this action. In each of those years, the plaintiffs were residents of the State of Georgia. Plaintiff Donald Schroerlucke is a former employee of WorldCom, Inc. In 1989, Mr. Schroerlucke was employed as Vice President of Operations at Long Distance Discounts Services, Inc., the predecessor corporation to WorldCom. Pursuant to stock option agreements with Long Distance Discount Services, Inc., and then with WorldCom, Mr. Schroerlucke accumulated employee stock option grants between July 1991 and January 1998. Mr. Schroerlucke’s employment with WorldCom ended on January 4, 1999, at which time his stock options became fully and immediately vested according to the terms of the stock option agreements and an April 7, 1998 memorandum titled, “WorldCom Employee Stock Option Program,” once his employment ended, Mr. Schroerlucke was required to immediately exercise all of his employee stock options. The April 7, 1998 memorandum stated in part: “Please note that under WorldCom Inc. 1997......

Words: 1447 - Pages: 6

Case Brief

... Bourland 724 F. 2d 1142 Case Brief Instructions Please note that, unlike the case you have been assigned, the cases in the text have been stripped down to a fundamental legal issue related to the chapter of study and do not contain much of the procedural aspects you may find in your case. DECIDE ON A FORMAT AND STICK TO IT: Structure is essential to a good brief. It enables you to arrange systematically the related parts that are scattered throughout most cases, thus making manageable and understandable what might otherwise seem to be an endless and unfathomable sea of information. There are, of course, an unlimited number of formats that can be utilized. However, it is best to find one that suits your needs and stick to it. Consistency breeds both efficiency and the security that when called upon you will know where to look in your brief for the information you are asked to give. Be mindful that the operative word is “brief”; ideally the case brief should be about one page in length and never over two pages. Nevertheless, it is important that a brief contain the following: TITLE AND VENUE: Identify the case name and citation in the correct format. RULE OF LAW: A statement of the general principle of law that the case illustrates in the form of a statement. Determining the rule of law of a case is a procedure similar to determining the issue of the case. Avoid being fooled by red herrings; there may be a few rules of law mentioned in the case excerpt, but usually only...

Words: 1396 - Pages: 6

Burnham V. Superior Court Case Brief

...Brief Fact Summary. Plaintiff Dennis Burnham, a New Jersey resident, was served with process for divorce by his wife in California, while he was visiting California on business. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Jurisdiction based on physical presence alone constitutes due process because it is one of the continuing traditions of our legal system that define the due process standard. Facts. Plaintiff a New Jersey resident, visited Southern California on business, after which he went to visit his children in the San Francisco Bay area, where his wife resided. Upon returning the children to his wife’s home, Plaintiff was served with a California court summons and a copy of his wife’s divorce petition. Plaintiff made a special appearance in California for the purpose of filing a motion to dismiss on the ground that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over him. The Superior Court denied the motion, and the California Court of Appeal denied mandamus relief. The Supreme Court of the United States then granted certiorari. Issue. Whether the Due Process clause denies a state court jurisdiction over a non-resident who was personally served with process while temporarily in that state, in a suit unrelated to his activities in that state. Held. No. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the California Superior Court. Jurisdiction based on physical presence alone constitutes due process because it is one of the continuing traditions of our legal system that define the due process......

Words: 402 - Pages: 2

Case Briefs of U.S Supreme Court Cases Introductory

...Thomas v. Winchester (1852) Facts: Mrs. Thomas was prescribed dandelion extract, but the bottle was mislabeled and actually contained a poison. Mrs. Thomas's husband had purchased the extract from druggist Ford who purchased from druggist Aspinwall who purchased from Winchester. Thomas sued Winchester and the trial court ruled in Thomas’s favor. Winchester appealed, stating that because he was not the direct vendor of the item and there was no direct connection between he and Thomas, Thomas could not sue him. Issue: Despite there being no direct connection between Thomas and Winchester, can Thomas sue Winchester Decision: Yes Reasons: The Court decided to make an exception to the theory of privity, based on Winterbottom v. Wright, in this case because of the inherent danger of poison, and death or great bodily harm was the natural result of the mislabeling of poison. Winchester had a duty to Thomas because it was the nature of his business that there would be a lack of privity if poison was mislabeled. Sub brief: Winterbottom v. Wright (1842) Facts: Wright owned a coach business and contracted with the Postmaster-General to supply coaches to carry the mail. As part of the contract, Wright agreed to keep the coaches in good condition and personally assume the duty of all maintenance and repairs. Atkinson also contracted with the Postmaster to supply horses and drivers for all coaches. Winterbottom, the plaintiff, was employed by Atkinson as a driver. One day, he was......

Words: 929 - Pages: 4

Criminal Courts Course Brief

...Hamdan, being charged with conspiracy in the United States District Court in the Western District of Washington, argued against the procedural safeguards he was guaranteed under UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions. Hamdan filed for a writ of habeas corpus and was granted so by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. As proceedings before military commission commenced, the Combatant Status Review Tribunal, held Hamdan for the time being as an “enemy combatant”, after review in compliance with a military order that had been issued July 7, 2004. The United States District Court for the District Court of Columbia agreed with Hamdan’s allegations that the military commission created to try him, was indeed in violations of the Geneva Conventions and the UCMJ. The Court of Appeals for the District Court of Columbia reversed the actions and stated that a trial before military commission would not violate the UCMJ or Geneva Conventions and that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to Hamdan. On November 7, 2005, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the authority was there to be tried by military commission and how the Geneva Conventions would be displayed. Issue: Whether Hamdan was triable my military commission and whether he was subject to UCMJ and Geneva Conventions Holding: No. The United States Supreme Court reversed The Court of Appeals for the District Court of Columbia’s decision. The Charge does not support the......

Words: 796 - Pages: 4

Case Brief

...Aubrey Grudowski Criminal Law Case Brief STANFORD v. KENTUCKY, 492 U.S. 361 (1989) 492 U.S. 361 STANFORD v. KENTUCKY 
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF KENTUCKY JUSTICE SCALIA FACTS Petitioner in No. 87-5765 was about seventeen years and four months of age when he committed murder in Kentucky. After a juvenile court and several hearings he went to trial as an adult in a category for those who have committed Class A felonies or those under age sixteen who have been charged with a felony. This Petitioner was sentenced to death due to the fact he commit murder in the first degree. The death sentence was agreed upon, his contention rejected, and the mitigating circumstances considering his age, meaning he had a constitutional right to the juvenile justice system. PROCEDURAL HISTORY A societal consensus was gathered that a far smaller number of those convicted under 18 have been sentenced to death than over 18. When the Bill of Rights were written, punishments were considered cruel and unusual, therefore the 8th amendment was added to the constitution, Ford v. Wainwright. Or evolving to make society more decent to prove the maturity, Trop v. Dulles. Petitioners have not mentioned that their punishments would have been considered cruel in the 18th century. With the common-law tradition, at least 281 offenders under 18, and 126 under 17, have been executed in this country. Also, with the cases 488 U.S. 887 (1988) and 487 U.S. 1233 (1988), certiorari was......

Words: 365 - Pages: 2

Court Case

...Court Case Brief 1 Under US Code Sec 6013 married couples have the option to file a joint or state income tax return. In order to be eligible to file a joint return a couple must be legally married as of the last day of the tax year. There are many advantages and disadvantages to filing a joint income tax return. In the case of Larry and Sue, we know that they do not have enough expenses to itemize their deductions; therefore filing a joint return would be more advantageous. Sue would beable to take advantage of the higher standard deduction for a married couple, which is $12,400 in 2014. If Sue were to file a separate return she could only claim a standard deduction of $6,200. Sue will also save money by splitting the cost of a tax preparer. Filing a joint return could possibly make her eligible for more deductions and tax credits. Not to mention if the couple does owe additional income tax Sue could split the liability with Larry, resulting in a lower payment. The rewards of filing a joint return do not come without risk. When filing a joint return Sue can still be held liable for any fraud Larry might commit. Sue already suspects that Larry is understating his tips. This will cause a gross income which in turn will result in a lower tax liability. If the IRS were to audit the couple and determine that their income was understated they will be held liable for the additional tax and possibly charged penalties and interest. Regardless if Sue was privy to the fraud or......

Words: 396 - Pages: 2

James vs Us Tax Court Case Brief

...JAMES V. U.S., 61-1 USTC 9449, 7 AFTR2D 1361, 366 U.S. 213 (USSC, 1961) FACTS: In this particular case, the defendant, Eugene C. James, embezzled money from both his union employer as well as an insurance company and failed to include these funds as gross income for tax purposes. The taxpayer disputed that the embezzled money should not qualify as taxable income as the funds were already required to be returned. James used a previous decision from Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Wilcox to show that the money was not taxable as he had “no claim of right” to the money because he no longer had possession of it. The court held that all income was to be taxed The court ultimately overturned the Wilcox case and ruled that the money was to be included in gross income because both legal and illegal earnings that are) acquired without the consensual recognition of an obligation to repay, are fully taxable. James was required to face legal penalties of three years in jail for his attempt at evading taxes in addition to the tax penalties of the crime. ISSUE: The issue being litigated in this case is whether embezzled funds should be a part of the embezzler’s gross income regardless of a repayment obligation. HOLDING: The Supreme Court ruled in agreement with the lower court’s decision and held that the defendant’s embezzled earnings were to be included on his tax return as gross income. LEGAL ANALYSIS: This ruling was supported by §61 of the Internal Revenue Code......

Words: 534 - Pages: 3

Case Brief

...INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM CASE BRIEF INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM CASE BRIEF To: Mr. Dudley Knox; Introduction to Law LGLA 1311-51001 From: Monica Holland Date: Friday October 24th 2014 IN RE: Introduction to the American Legal System Eighth Edition; Schulze, Patterson Upper Saddle River, New Jersey ------------------------------------------------- Assignment: I have been asked to brief a criminal case of my choice. It must be briefed on two headnotes, and one dealing with the Penal Code. The case must be 2010 or newer. The format of the brief needs to be like the Bruni case on pages 313 & 314. CITATIONS: DESORMEAUX v. STATE Cite as 362 S.W.3d 233 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2012). PARTIES: Leo Thomas DESORMEAUX IV, Appellant here, v. The STATE of Texas Appellee here. OBJECTIVES OF PARTIES: The people want to convict and punish defendant for capital murder and injury to a child. Defendant DESORMEAUX wants to appeal the courts decision. THEORIES OF LITIGATION: 1. TRIAL: The People sought to prosecute and punish DESORMEAUX for the conviction and punishment of both crimes in the same trial. (The legal theory that justifies the bringing of both the conviction and punishment is sought in the same trial. The opinion does not list two separate the two crimes, instead they are keeping them combined for one big punishment as opposed to two.) Because DESORMEAUX is appealing the courts ruling, we can assume that the basis and theory of his case is simply that he did......

Words: 693 - Pages: 3

Court Case

...UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION In re: } } Christina Blasco, } CASE NO. 06-40634-JJR-13 } Debtor. } CHAPTER: 13 } ______________________________________________________________________________ } Christina Blasco, } } Plaintiff, } ADV. P. NO.: 06-40087 } v. } } Money Services Center } d/b/a Cash Connection } } Defendant. } } MEMORANDUM OPINION GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The above case came before the Court on the defendant’s motion for summary judgment filed on August 1, 2006, in response to the debtor-plaintiff’s complaint alleging the creditor-defendant violated the automatic stay [i.e. 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)] by cashing the plaintiff’s check after she filed a petition for relief under Chapter 13 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The defendant avers it did not violate the automatic stay because of the exception provided in 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(11). The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334. The Court heard oral arguments on September 12, 2006 and directed the parties to file additional briefs dealing with whether the check at issue qualified as a negotiable instrument. For the reasons stated below, the 1 Case 06-40087-JJR Doc 31 Filed 10/26/06 Entered 10/26/06 08:56:27 Document Page 1 of 10 Desc Main Court finds the motion for summary judgment is due to be GRANTED. Background On April 15, 2006, the......

Words: 3439 - Pages: 14

Case Briefs

...Unit 3 Case Brief Jon E. Johnson Kaplan, University Unit 3 Case Brief Case: Mitchell v.Lovington Good Samaritan Center Inc., 555 P.2d 696 (N.M. 1976) Facts: On 6/4/1974 the Petitioner, Zelma Mitchell, was terminated from her employment at Lovington Good Samaritan Center, INC., for alleged misconduct. On 6/12/1974, Mitchell applied for unemployment compensation and was found ineligible due to her being terminated for misconduct. She was found to be ineligible by an Unemployment Security Commission Deputy. Mrs. Mitchell filed an appeal to the Appeal Tribunal, and the referee of the Tribunal, reversed the decision of the Unemployment Security Commission Deputy, and her benefits were reinstated. On September 13, 1974, the Good Samaritan Center INC., appealed the decision of the Appeal Tribunal, to the entire Commission pursuant to s 59-9-6(E), N.M.S.A. 1953, and the Appeals Tribunal’s decision was overruled, and Mrs. Mitchell was again disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. Mrs. Mitchell then asked for and received a review of the Commission’s decision, from the District Court of Bernalillo County, pursuant to s 59-9-6(K), N.M.S.A. 1953. On 01/16/1976, the District Court overturned the Commission’s decision, and Mrs. Mitchell was again reinstated to receive her unemployment benefits. On June 4, 1974, the Petitioner, Mrs. Mitchell, was caught by Center’s director filling in her time sheet, prior to commencing her shift. When questioned about why she was doing...

Words: 1475 - Pages: 6

Case Brief

...by a Texas federal district court of conspiracy, securities fraud, making false representations to auditors, and insider trading. Mr. Skilling had been the C.E.O. of Enron Corp. Mr. Skilling appealed, he argued he was prosecuted by the government under an invalid legal theory and that the jury he had was biased. II. Defenses claimed by the defense Criminal trials are normally held where the crime was committed, however, the defendant may request a change of venue if they believe that bias where the crime was committed would prevent them from receiving a fair trial. Mr. Skilling argued that the court should have never tried him in Houston. Mr. Skilling pointed out prior cases where the Court decided that due to extreme media coverage there was a possibility of juror prejudice that required the courts to change the venue. However, I believe that Mr. Skilling’s case differs from these prior cases which were all in small communities, had media coverage that showed the defendant confessions, and trials that occurred right after the crime and media coverage. I also believe that Skilling’s jury acquitted him of several charges, due to this face I believe that it is very unlikely that there was any juror prejudice. Even though the media coverage of Skilling seems to all be positive, I do not believe that it was not to the necessary level to show that there would be juror prejudice. Due to all of these reasons, I do not believe that the district court made any errors by denying......

Words: 1487 - Pages: 6

Case Briefs

...Babatunde White Torts Case Briefs Yania v Bigan 397 Pa. 316 Parties: Plaintiff - Yania (decedent's widow) Defendant – Procedural History: Trial court dismissed the case; plaintiff appeals. Cause of action: Negligence Facts: Bigan engaged in a coal mining operation, and had trenches on his property for this purpose. The trenches were 16-18 feet in height, and contained water of 8-10 feet (water pump not working to take out the water). Yania went to Bigan's property for purposes of business. During his visit, he was taunted andcajoled by Bigan, which induced Yania to jump in the water and he drowned. Bigan made no physical act that caused Yania to fall in, and Yania to not fall in by mistake, but of his own volition Issue: Was Bigan responsible for Yania jumping in the water due to the mental impact he had on Yania? Is Bigan responsible for not acting to save Yania from drowning? - No, No. Holding: No, Order to dismiss affirmed. Reasoning: Yania was an adult of full mental capacity. Bigan's taunts, etc. arenot the reason Yania drowned. Yania jumped in of his own volition. Yania knew or should have known that jumping into the water was very dangerous, and made the decision to do so himself. Bigan had no legal duty to save Yaniafrom drowning, unless it was caused by his own negligence, which it was decidedabove that it was not. Bigan had no legal duty to rescue. Erie R.R. v. Stewart 40 F.2d 855, 1930 U.S. App Procedural History: Tompkins......

Words: 776 - Pages: 4